DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 07/12/2020
CC/154/2020
T.Mini
A-32, CANARA Bank Colony
Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007 - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
Shahul Hameed
Kundempadam, Ennapadam
Elapully, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv. S.Saviour)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant engaged the opposite party for the part concreting/tiling and plumbing works of her mother’s house at Ramassery, Palakkad. A rough written agreement detailing the works to be carried out, the time of completion and the financial consideration of 3 lakhs and twenty five thousand was signed by the opposite party. The work was agreed to be completed by 31/03/2020; but the opposite party did not complete the work within that time.
Out of the agreed amount, Rs. 2,84,554/- was paid by the complainant before March end. But the opposite party had just started plumbing and major part of sump work and some concreting works also remained. On the agreed date of completion of work, the opposite party had carried out only one third of the work. The work was stopped due to lockdown and when it recommenced, the opposite party asked more money citing lack of funds.
The opposite party claimed the work as completed in July 2020. However it was not fully completed and many of the pending works were carried out by the complainant by engaging other parties which caused additional expenses to her.
The complainant had extended a loan of Rs. 20,000/- to the opposite party on 21/06/2020 with an undertaking by him to return the same by 20/09/2020. But the opposite party did not repay the amount as agreed. So the complaint is filed for the deficiency in service of the opposite party in not undertaking the jobs entrusted satisfactorily within specified time as well as failure to repay the loan within specified time.
The reliefs sought for by the complainant are
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh for the failure to complete the work and for the financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.
- To return Rs. 20,000/- which the opposite party took as loan from the complainant together with interest with effect from 20/09/2020 till return.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. Opposite party in his version admitted that the opposite party undertook the renovation of complainant’s mother’s house in Ramassery, Palakkad. He denied the agreement between the parties and the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- mentioned in that. As per the complainant’s direction, the opposite party collected the amount from the bank to purchase the construction materials and to give labour charges to the labourers. The opposite party denied the rest of the allegations in the complaint. He stated that he along with some labourers worked in repairing the old house of complainant’s mother. The complainant issued cheques for purchasing the construction materials and to give daily wages to the workers. The opposite party had signed some blank cheques and blank stamp papers as per the complainant’s demand. The complainant did not return these documents even after the completion of the construction and filed this false complaint.
So he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A3 marked. Ext. A1 is objected to on the ground that it is a photocopy. He also has a case that Ext. A1 is a forged and fabricated document. Ext. A2 is objected on the ground that it is only a noting in a note book. Ext. A3 is objected to on the ground that it does not pertain to this case and transaction herein. Eventhough marking of Exts. A1 to A3 are objected to by the counsel, the opposite party during cross examination admitted that he has signed these documents.
Complainant was examined as PW1.
Opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exts. B1 and B2 (series) marked. Opposite party was examined as DW1. Both parties filed notes of arguments.
5. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration
- Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that opposite party failed to complete the work as agreed?
- Whether any amount is due from opposite party to the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
- Reliefs as cost and compensation.
6. Point No: 1
Complainant’s grievance is that she engaged the opposite party for part concreting/tiling and plumbing works of her mother’s ancestral house. A rough written agreement detailing the works to be carried out, its expenses and time of completion was executed between the complainant and the opposite party. As per that, the work was supposed to be completed by 31/03/2020 and total consideration for the work was Rs. 3,25,000/- When the work was stopped due to lock-down, only 1/3rd of the work was completed; but major portion of the amount was given to the opposite party. The work which was to be completed by 31/03/2020, was delayed till July 2020. Many of the pending works were carried out by the complainant expending additional amount by engaging other workers.
7. Complainant produced three documents in support of her claim. Ext. A1 is a hand written sheet of paper which according to the complainant is the rough agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party.
The marking of this document is opposed by the opposite party’s counsel stating that it is a forged and fabricated document.
8. Ext. A1 does not contain the date of execution of this document, the signature of the complainant or no witness has attested it. Contents in Ext. A1 are indecipherable also.
The opposite party deposed during cross examination that (Deposition of DW1 – page 3) “ഞാനും പരാതിക്കാരിയുമായി കരാർ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. (Ext. A1 shown to witness) അതില് ഷാഹുൽ ഹമീദ് എന്ന പേരിൽ ഒപ്പിട്ടിരിക്കുന്നത് ഞാനാണ്. ഞാൻ 5-ാം ക്ലാസ് വരെയെ പഠിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളു. Address എഴുതാൻ അറിയും. ഇംഗ്ലീഷിൽ മറ്റൊന്നും എഴുതാൻ അറിയില്ല.”
The opposite party admitted the signature affixed on the top portion of Ext. A1 agreement. The last portion of Ext. A1 shows that “Payment will be by cheque. 1st payment will be on commencement of work on 31/01/2020 at Ramassery, Hema Cottege. Amount of Rs. 45,000/- and 1 OU account payee cheque also for purchase of materials”.
So agreed by both parties. Total amount of Rs. 3.25 lakhs, completion by 31st March 2020 (including a break of 10 days).”
9. Ext. A2 is the receipts for the payments received on different dates. The opposite party admitted that he has affixed his signature on all the documents in Ext. A2. He deposed that “പൈസ തരുന്നതിന് വൌച്ചർ വേണമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞത് എഴുതി ഒപ്പിട്ടു കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. മലയാളം എഴുതാൻ അറിയാം. Ext. A2 ൽ 10/03/2020ൽ വേയ്സ്റ്റ് മാറ്റാനും, ടൈല് അഡ്വാൻസ് 15,000/- രൂപ തന്നിട്ടുണ്ട് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് ശരിയാണ്. Ext. A2 ൽ 22/03/2020ൽ പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്ന തുക ഒപ്പിട്ടു വാങ്ങിയിട്ടുണ്ട് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് ശരിയാണ്.”
As per the voucher dated 21/03/2020, the opposite party admitted that he had received Rs. 2,81,000/- and balance to be paid only after completing the remaining tile work.
10. According to the complainant, the opposite party agreed to complete the work by 31/03/2020; but it was delayed till July 2020. The complainant and opposite party had stated that the work was stopped due to lock-down in March and recommenced by mid of May. So the opposite party completed the work within one and a half months which appears to be a reasonable time.
11. The complainant further contended that many of the pending works of plumbing were carried out by the complainant herself by engaging other workers incurring additional expenses. But she has not produced any evidence to show this.
12. As per the complainant, many of the works were pending at the time of filing of this complaint and some other works does not meet the specifications given by her. But she has not taken out any expert Commission to prove her contentions. In the absence of expert evidence showing these, the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite party had not completed the work as per the agreement. Point no: 1 is decided accordingly.
13. Point No: 2
Complainant’s another grievance is regarding the non-return of Rs.20,000/- extended as loan to the opposite party on 21/06/2020. The opposite party undertook to return it by 20/09/2020. But he did not return the amount even after repeated demands made by the complainant.
Ext. A3 is the promissory note executed by the opposite party stating that he had borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant on 21/06/2020 and will be returned on 20/09/2020. The opposite party also admitted this during cross examination. He further stated that “20/09/2020ന് തിരിച്ചു കൊടുത്തോ എന്ന ചോദിച്ചാൽ കൊടുത്തിട്ടില്ല. അത് Labour ആയിട്ട് കണക്കാക്കാമെന്ന് മാഡം പറഞ്ഞു. ആത് കടമായിട്ടേ തരികയുള്ളു. Stamp paper വാങ്ങിയിട്ട് വരാൻ പറഞ്ഞു.” (Page No: 4, lines 1 – 4).
14. From this, it is clear that Rs. 20,000/- is extended as loan by the complainant to the opposite party. She is claiming the return of that amount. She did not state it as consideration for the service rendered by the opposite party.
In that case, it did not come under the definition of Consideration’ and therefore under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The provisions of the Act cannot be invoked for return of the loan amount. We have no jurisdiction to entertain a money matter based on a promissory note. Point no: 2 is decided accordingly.
15. Points 3 to 5
The opposite party had completed the work undertaken by him in the month of July instead of agreed time of 31/03/2020. The reason stated by him is Lock-down followed by Covid-19 which is a genuine and valid reason. After that there was no inordinate delay on his part. The contention of the complainant that he had not done the entire work as per the agreement and she had to engage other workers to complete it is without any supporting evidence. In the absence of any evidence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the opposite party. So the complainant is not entitled to the 1st relief prayed. 2nd relief cannot be looked into as it is beyond our jurisdiction.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 4th day of May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Copy of rough Agreement.
Ext. A2: Copy of Receipts.
Ext. A3: Copy of IOU.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:
Ext. B1: Series of written details of cost incurred by opposite party.
Ext. B2: Series of Tax Invoice (Bill No: 1535 & Bill No: 1536).
Witness examined from the complainant’s side:
DW1: Shahul Hameed – Opposite Party.
Witness examined from the opposite parties side:
PW1: T.Mini – Complainant.
Cost- Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
